A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain as exempt from tax. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee and computed the long

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

disallowing the claim of rebate of Rs.13,320/- under section 87A of the Act in respect of tax on short- term capital gain

SURESH CHANDRA SADH,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

disallowed the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.80,17,339/- and made addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the Act. In this

SHRI BASANT MAKHIJA,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-I, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeals and Cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowing the rebate/exemption from long term capital gain: Assessee sold agriculture land for Rs. 88,38,000/- situated at Kedar

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains\narising to an Individual or a HUF from compulsory acquisition of an\nagricultural land situated in specified urban limit, subject to fulfilment\nof certain conditions. Therefore, compensation received from\ncompulsory acquisition of an agricultural land is not taxable under the\nAct (subject to fulfilment of certain conditions for specified urban land).\n2. The RFCTLARR Act which came into

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

Gains from Business or Profession’. It is also stipulated in the Act that the partnership firm shall be allowed interest paid on capital of the partners @ 12% and any excess is to be disallowed

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

disallowance sustained was on the higher side”. 5. The facts are that the AO, in the assessment order, added certain credit entries appearing in the assessee’s bank account, aggregating to Rs.18,80,408/- and, after allowing the benefit of certain cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.16

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

disallowance sustained was on the higher side”. 5. The facts are that the AO, in the assessment order, added certain credit entries appearing in the assessee’s bank account, aggregating to Rs.18,80,408/- and, after allowing the benefit of certain cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.16

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL HUF,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year:2012-13

capital gain of Rs.91,95,570/- was accrued to the assessee after deduction of the cost of indexation. 2.1 The assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F, as the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 1,13,76,245/- for the purchase of a residential flat bearing Flat No. E- 1601, 16th Floor in the building, Vivarea, at Koramangla Industrial

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain Tax is chargeable from the appellant. 5. That no show cause notice is issued by the A.O and an ex parte order was passed. I.T.A No.440/Agra/2017 5 6. That the appellant is a semiliterate agriculturist and having no knowledge of Income tax Act. 7. That the appellant submitted written reply to the A.O that the appellant has invested

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain was computed at Rs.26,47,47,255/- as against 19,01,49,859/- declared by the assessee. The AO also disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain was computed at Rs.26,47,47,255/- as against 19,01,49,859/- declared by the assessee. The AO also disallowed

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

capital gains as borrowed funds were utilised for making investment in virtual digital asset and that the interest becomes part of cost of acquisition. This plea was not accepted by the learned AO and the interest expenditure of Rs. 5,74,560 was disallowed

RAMJI DAS GUPTA ,GWALIOR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 GWALIOR , GWALIOR

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 81/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.82/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.83/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Ramji Das Gupta Acit-Circle-1, बनाम/ 27, Madhav Nagar, Gwalior Vs. Gwalior "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Acopg-5414-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Gourav Goyal, Ca- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2011- 12 To 2013-14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Facts & Issues Are Admittedly The Same. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2011-12 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)

capital gains. The gains are to be computed on sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed. The appeal stand partly allowed. 6. In AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14, the sole grievance of the assessee is interest disallowance